there's a lot of opinion available to read out there and theirs doesn't say much that's not expected, always can guess what I am going to see.   I don't see the point of arguing with them over and over and over and over.

And yet you do, over and over again. You make your above comment with apparently no sense at all of irony. Often you do not dispute a point so you are not arguing substance of what you reject but still you cannot pass the chance to ridicule the evidence presented. Often that is justified with reference to one contributor or one contribution from the past even if on a different issue completely, even if they have a history that should give them some fair measure of credence.  [You are not alone in using this method] Fairly adopting your standard across the board by which you ridicule other sites would render The New York Times, which you refer to multiple time a day, a laughingstock even though they are a vital part of our news system.  To believe that corporate media staffed by journalists who are climbing through the corporate system of advancement by reporting in a way approved by the corporate power do not have, or at least play to, the larger corporate view doesn’t demonstrate much “nuance” of understanding. Again, IMO. 

 Pilger, for instance, is IMO a very good and important journalist who does not pretend to the supposed “Voice from nowhere” and actually coming out of a very definite place, is a good one to give total credence to. He has a very definite view of international conflicts and a career of reporting on them which has no doubt created and then confirmed his bias by being proven correct time after time. You can expect that any new documentary by him will be critically analysing the various actors and will be giving evidence of the true story as he sees it and opposing it where appropriate to the story being told in the NYT, for instance. Dismissing him or some others and defending that on the grounds that he is covered at a site you have rejected is silly.

I know he's dead. Parry being a corpse has nothing to do with the credibility of his reporting when he was alive. People thought he was credible enough to be worthy of the George Polk award, the I.F. Stone award, and the Martha Gellhorn award.

 I don't really see how those three pieces demonstrate that Consortium News isn't reliable. Pilger says that Assange told him he hadn't met Manafort. Maybe Assange did tell him that; I wasn't there. McGovern wrote an angry article denouncing America's wars and especially the deceptions involved in the Iraq War. Whether his stance is the right one is subjective, but did he get the facts wrong? Does the support these guys have shown for Assange show that Parry and his site aren't (weren't) trustworthy? I don't think so.

Parry credibility, from 2016, on the shootdown on MH-17 below. Parry was great in the 80s and 90s and helped improve journalism, however, he later went full tilt on one sided conspiracy mongering,.... not once in recent years publishing a single article that centered on either (1) the US government told the truth on some incident...or...(2) the Russians or Putin lied about some incident.

Debunking Parry on MH 17:

Robert Parry is a kind of thinking mans Alex Jones. He takes bits of information, mixes, rehashes them and then concludes there are enormous conspiracies about.

For instance, the article you link touches on his MH-17 crash reports. I looked into Parry on that. His links to his links etc.

He here uses the 10-13-2015 first post-crash Review Report Arising from the Crash of MH-17 to debunk the recent Dutch final report that a Russian Buk in rebel hands was responsible for the crash.

If you bother to work through the links in Parry's articles which he links to other Parry articles, to finally find a link to something not at Consortium News, you find the post-crash Dutch Report of 10-13-2015 was specifically a cover their ass analysis to exonerate themselves from not closing the flight route, from the front page of that report:

The role of the General Intelligence and Security Service of the Netherlands (AIVD) and the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) in the decision-making related to the security of flight routes

Parry then goes on to cite the same report in one of these string of his articles absolving Russia of accountability for the shoot-down by saying the final report on the shoot-down (which blamed the rebels using a BUK unit from Russia) was to be doubted because that new report Parry 'Troubling Doubts":

didn’t address questions (from the 10-13-2015 report linked above) about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down.

What he doesn't mention from that same first after crash report is that the Ukrainian Buk missile battery was at a Ukrainian base, and that had been taken over by the rebels.

And "that reliable sources indicated that the systems that were at the military base were not operational."

Therefore, they could not be used by the CIA or Ukraine, or the rebels. Therefore in the recent final report that Buk is not mentioned.

Again from the 2015 Dutch report:

On 29 June 2014, the Separatists captured a Ukrainian armed forces military base in Donetsk. At this base, there were Buk missile systems. These are powerful anti-aircraft systems. This development was reported extensively in the media prior to the crash. The MIVD also received intelligence information on the subject, on 30 June and 3 July 2014 as well as on other dates. During the course of July, several reliable sources indicated that the systems that were at the military base were not operational. Therefore, they could not be used by the Separatists.

So Parry uses a post-crash preliminary report meant toe cover the ass of Dutch Defense officials over not closing the flight path over the Ukraine, that a Ukrainian Base which the rebels had captured (which Parry didn't mention) had a non-functional (which Parry also didn't mention) Buk, which Buk was not further discussed in the year later final report - to spread doubt over the whole Dutch investigation which recently concluded that it was a Russian Buk that shot the plane down, being used by the rebels. Facts which fit with the previous report if you bother to read it. Which I assume Parry did, pulling out stuff out of context to spread disinformation.

As I have said before on the MH-17 shoot down when you posted on this, the plane wreckage and bodies came down on the rebels in their territory, the cell phones, which they picked up, used. Gravity tells me Parry is full of shit on this. The Russian backed rebels were the ones who shot it down with a Russian missile, I don;t need phone call intercepts which Parry also throws doubts on to believe that.

And your primary Parry link could be summarized as "people in the news who still have jobs in the news didn't stop the Iraq War, ergo, there will be war with Russia over Syria'. 

Unlikely, but possible.

Far more likely with a Republican there than a Democrat. Parry doesn't take sides, he is a both sides conspiracy seller.  Like far too many in the media business. Making a living at liquidating our democracy by spreading fears, innuendoes, dismissing facts. His implication is invariably we cannot trust anyone in ours or any western government. Yet he seems to trust Vladimir Putin.

If any more wars are started it will most likely be by the GOP.

Both siderists come in many forms. Parry promotes the democracy dissolving mantra that our entire government, and even the Dutch in this case, produce nothing but lies and cannot be trusted with telling the truth.

He helped cultivate it first - the better to stir the chaos.

 I know this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't think that withdrawing our support constitutes an intervention; it means ceasing to intervene.